Jousting with Jacobs

Perhaps no vision for “great” American cities commands the same devotion as that of Jane Jacobs. Mixed uses, a range of building types, diversity of residents, and a vibrant street life—all are paid lip service by New York City planners and developers. But, argued a panel of urban scholars hosted by Village Preservation, the persistence of Jacobs’s vision is “surprising” given that it was developed under a “much different set of circumstances.” New York has changed more than a little bit since the 1960s, as has the way city making is theorized. Jacobs’s “architectural determinism”—associating a diverse streetscape with social diversity—amounts to a false equivalence, said Susan Fainstein. The vibrancy Jacobs advocated for a half-century ago has led to a dramatic “upscaling” of lower Manhattan, observed Sharon Zukin. “She wanted all land-use decisions to include community groups,” said M. Christine Boyer—a salutary recommendation whose contemporary analogue substitutes Post-It notes for power. Of course, Jacobs couldn’t have imagined the ends to which her ideas would be put; she would have doubtlessly abhorred the “luxury city” New York has become. For this reason, there perhaps remains an aspect of her wisdom that cannot be assimilated by the established order of real-estate speculators and the politicos who give them cover. In other words, Jacobs’s ethical bent, as best summed up in her motto, “Conscience is the ultimate weapon.”